ISLAMABAD, June 5: A counsel of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on Tuesday disagreed with a petitioner who had expressed fears of imposition of another martial law if the present turmoil surrounding the suspension of the chief justice was prolonged.

“Do not worry as there is no fear of another martial law because those who have seen the rousing welcome accorded to the chief justice in Lahore and Abbotabad know that the people are on the roads and will resist imposition of a new military rule,” said Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, who is representing Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry before a 13-member larger bench hearing identical petitions challenging the filing of reference against the chief justice, composition of the Supreme Judicial Council and its competence to try the chief justice.

Barrister Ahsan interjected when petitioner Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada was arguing that the nation had enough and could not afford a new general clamping a military rule and putting “us again on the same grind”.

Criticising the way the current crisis was being handled, he deplored that had the entire matter been left with the judiciary after simply filing the reference against the chief justice on misconduct, the turmoil “we were in would not have been there”.

The government had committed a blunder as the entire issue was left to intelligence agencies which had no idea how the judiciary or law functioned, Mr Pirzada said.

He said that in a parliamentary form of governance, the prime minister was the chief executive and the president in such a system always acted as a postman while sending the reference to the SJC.

“The president enjoys a title head only. Article 211 of the Constitution does not give blanket immunity to the president but whatever the president had done in this case was beyond his constitutional duty,” he said.

Mr Pirzada argued that the appointment as well as removal of judges should be dealt only with the judiciary as the fate of judges could not be left to the prime minister or the cabinet because they had political ambitions.

The instant controversy involved serious questions of public importance and the Supreme Court enjoyed the authority to step in and resolve any conflict between constitutional and sub-constitutional provisions, he said, adding that the SJC functioned in a very airtight compartment with limited scope.

Barrister Dr Farooq Hasan, appearing on behalf of the Wukla Muhaz Committee, emphasised that no reference could be moved against the chief justice before the council which was not a court as courts were never protected through ousters.

Jamil Ahmed Malik of the Communist Party of Pakistan said the Constitution was abrogated once again after March 9, 2007, when the chief justice had been suspended from the top office.

He said the nation was waiting anxiously to see if the judiciary sided with the chief justice or a general in uniform.

Ahmed Raza Qasuri, representing the federal government, argued that the council which dealt with the removal of judges was the highest judicial forum, and like the apex court it was a creature of the Constitution.